Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 151 (0.55 seconds)

The vs Unknown on 5 May, 2022

Moji Ram as well as in Pandit Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh held that at appellate stage the applications have been filed under Order VI Rule 17 and the Court has suggested that amendment can be allowed at the appellate stage also. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the legal advice the present application is filed for amendment of the written statement. Accordingly, requested to allow the Application.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Ramesh - Full Document

C.A.Khabeer vs The Sub-Registrar on 17 September, 2009

In Ishwardas vs. State of M.P, reported in AIR 1979 SC 551, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus : "In order to sustain the plea of res judicata it is not necessary that all the parties to the two litigations must be common. All that is necessary is that the issue should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim." The said decision is also not relevant for the disposal of the suit or second appeal on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Smt. Bechi Rani Saha vs Sri Subodh Adhikari And Ors on 10 January, 2025

The issue involved herein is being considered by the Courts every day. Amendment in the pleadings may generally be allowed and the amendment 15 may also be allowed at the belated stage. However, it should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be compensated in terms of cost or change the nature of the suit itself as it cannot be permitted to create an entirely new case by amendment. A right accrued in favour of a party by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be taken away by amendment. Amendment can also be allowed at appellate stage. Introduction of an entirely new case, displacing even admission by a party is not permissible. (Vide Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. ; Nanduri Yogananda Laxminarsimhachari and Ors. v. Sri Agasthe Swarswamivaru ; Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. ; Ishwardas v. State of M.P. AIR 1979 SC 551 and Mulk Raj Batra v. District Judge, Dehradun ).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Selvam vs N.Vasudevan on 9 October, 2018

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in Ishwardas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC 55 and P. Purusottam Reddy and another vs. Pratap Steels Limited, 2002 (2) ctc 686, this Court is of the considered view that the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error of law in remanding the matter only for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the pleadings and to adduce additional evidence. As laid down by the Apex Court it is not proper for the Appellate Court to remand the case to enable the parties to make good their lapse.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - J N Banu - Full Document

Krishnammal (Deceased) vs V.Gurunathan on 5 June, 2020

Secondly, whatever that were submitted by the defendants 2 to 6 / appellants is a new plea that was not even pleaded, and today they are forbidden from raising it as per the ratio in Pandit Ishwardas Vs State of Madhya Paradesh [(1979)4 SCC 163]. Thirdly, even if it were to be presumed that this plea could be admitted, yet the issue on the validity of the sale in favour of Kanniammal by Hamsavalli had become final, and the findings there on in A.S.453/1948 (with which the judgement in O.S.95/1947 merged), the same will operate as resjudicata.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next